The Court allowed a criminal petition to quash an FIR citing parties' voluntary compromise via a Memorandum of Compromise and Supreme Court guidelines, ruling no purpose is served in keeping the non-compoundable complaint pending.
The First Information Report in Crime No.103 of 2021 was quashed, and the investigation ordered to be halts.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
CRL.O.P.No.10370 of 2021
1.B.Rajkumar 2.S.Raji 3.M.Sarath Kumar 4.S.Prabhu @ Prabhakaran
5.M.Nithishkumar
... Petitioners
Versus
Crime No.103 of 2021.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in Crime No.103 of 2021 on the file of 1st respondent herein, quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Dhanasekar
For 1st Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.103 of 2021, dated 03.04.2021, on the file of the 1 st respondent Police.
2.The case is still at the stage of investigation. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.
3.The Memorandum of Compromise dated 16.06.2021 has been filed before this Court. The petitioners and the 2nd respondent were also present through Video conferencing. In the Memorandum of Compromise, it has been stated that the petitioners and the second respondent have entered into a compromise and amicably settled their issues in Crime No.103 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of 2021. This Court also enquired both the parties and was
satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.
4.Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the First Information Report pending, even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature. In the light of the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in “2017 9 SCC 641-(Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath)”, and after exercising due caution as advised by the Hon'ble Suprme Court in “The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar and Another reported in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10”, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashes the First Information Report in Crime No.103 of 2021, on the file of the 1st respondent Police.
5.This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the investigation in Crime No.103 of 2021, on the file of the 1st respondent police, is quashed.
*Copy of Memo of Compromise enclosed
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vv2
To
CRL.O.P.No.10370 of 2021
PMK(CO) RLP(09/08/2021)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when parties have compromised and entered into a Memorandum of Compromise despite the offence being non-compoundable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of GujaratRelied on¶22
2017 9 SCC 641-(Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath) · Who else cites this
The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar and AnotherRelied on¶22
The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar and Another reported in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10
1 provisions across 1 enactments
B.Rajkumar
S.Raji
M.Sarath Kumar
S.Prabhu @ Prabhakaran
M.Nithishkumar
State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, K-4 Anna Nagar Police Station, Chennai
M.Nirmal Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
M.Nirmal Kumar
Parties & counsel
